Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

780 GTX TI vs 780

mcrippinsmcrippins Member RarePosts: 1,474

Hello,

 

  I'm going to buy a new video card here in a few hours and I am deciding between these 2. There's a clear price difference of about $200. I've read a few articles, but as far as cost : performance ratio - what is the better bang for my buck? I've saved up enough so money isn't a huge issue, but if I can save $200, then I wouldn't mind.

Comments

  • skyline385skyline385 Member Posts: 564
    The general consensus is that unless you are going for a multi monitor setup, you don't need the Ti version. The standard version is good enough for most HD monitors. Except for Witcher 3, i can't even think of any graphics intensive game coming up this year.

    image
  • crashburn162crashburn162 Member UncommonPosts: 27
    Without any info on what resolution you are going to play, the best bang for the buck is the GTX 770 i have 2 of those by GIgabyte I overclocked them and I  get 160FPS constant on BF4 on high with x2 anti-alising. Tom's Hardware also agree that this is the best bang for the buck.

    Fuck With The Best, Die Like The Rest!!!

  • mcrippinsmcrippins Member RarePosts: 1,474
    I've heard good things about the 770 as well. I tend to play in 1920x1080 as that is the native res for my monitor. I'm mainly looking at the future for games. Currently I have a 590 gtx that runs most things just fine, but a lot of the newer games, and beyond that seem to be getting crazy. So I just want to make sure I don't have to upgrade for a while. 
  • skyline385skyline385 Member Posts: 564
    Originally posted by crashburn162
    Without any info on what resolution you are going to play, the best bang for the buck is the GTX 770 i have 2 of those by GIgabyte I overclocked them and I  get 160FPS constant on BF4 on high with x2 anti-alising. Tom's Hardware also agree that this is the best bang for the buck.

    2 X GTX770 will always be better than a solo GTX780 but many people hate the SLI complications which come up with new games. It also takes up more space in your cabinet, more heat, requires more cables and more power.

    image
  • crashburn162crashburn162 Member UncommonPosts: 27
    Forgot to say I suggest you get the 4gb ram version because if BF4 now on ultra takes 2.9gb video ram I guess next year or even witcher will take more.

    Fuck With The Best, Die Like The Rest!!!

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by crashburn162
    Forgot to say I suggest you get the 4gb ram version because if BF4 now on ultra takes 2.9gb video ram I guess next year or even witcher will take more.

     

    2.9GB?!?  Good grief.  Most cards have 2GB on board.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • mcrippinsmcrippins Member RarePosts: 1,474
    A buddy of mine has SLI 770s and he always talks about how it's annoying with certain games, and he has a lot of issues. I have a dual monitor setup, but only game on one. I think i'd prefer a singular card at this point.
  • mcrippinsmcrippins Member RarePosts: 1,474
    Originally posted by crashburn162
    Forgot to say I suggest you get the 4gb ram version because if BF4 now on ultra takes 2.9gb video ram I guess next year or even witcher will take more.

    Wow that's crazy. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads up!

  • skyline385skyline385 Member Posts: 564
    Originally posted by mcrippins
    Originally posted by crashburn162
    Forgot to say I suggest you get the 4gb ram version because if BF4 now on ultra takes 2.9gb video ram I guess next year or even witcher will take more.

    Wow that's crazy. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads up!

    He's running it without V-Sync at 160FPS that's why the huge VRAM. I run it at High on my GTX560 1GB card at 40-50FPS. I never run my games without V Sync ON as it not only consumes more power and heats up the card but also reduces the life of the GPU.

    image
  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297

    Those 4 gig Inno3D 770s perform pretty much the same as a baseline 780. I got one, had a 5850 Turbo before that, and my performance was improved dramatically. I mean like 100+ frames in some games. Very quiet as well. I'm super fussy about volume because my PC is in the living room but this is probably the most silent card I've had.

    Inno3D GeForce GTX 770 iChill HerculeZ X3 Ultra 4096MB

    I recommend checking it out. I considered a 780 but I'm happy I got this instead. Got the performance increase I wanted for cheaper, simple as that really.

    Just remember it's a BIG card if it does interest you.

     

    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • jdnewelljdnewell Member UncommonPosts: 2,237
    If your resolution is 1080 on a single monitor then I would go with a top 770 or the GTX 780. A single monitor at 1080 either of those will be more than enough.
  • Allacore69Allacore69 Member Posts: 839


    Originally posted by crashburn162
    Without any info on what resolution you are going to play, the best bang for the buck is the GTX 770 i have 2 of those by GIgabyte I overclocked them and I  get 160FPS constant on BF4 on high with x2 anti-alising. Tom's Hardware also agree that this is the best bang for the buck.


    Exactly what I have. 770 GTX, superclocked EVGA. Can run any and all games on ULTRA and ULTIMATE.

    And yeah, check toms hardware too for info on PC hardware/software.


    With one 770 GTX I have never dropped below 70 fps on Crysis 3. On the highest setting. Even the Nvedia Experience set everything to max. Same with tomb raider and the rest.

    Don't spend more than you have too. Hell I have about 5 years before i'm running games on High. 10 or more years till I even hit low settings on any game.

    Might need more ram. Only have 8 gigs at 1866mhz.

  • crashburn162crashburn162 Member UncommonPosts: 27
    I use 120hz monitor and I don't use V-sync haven't had any problems with 770 SLI even if the game doesn't have SLI profile you will just use 1 card instead of both, but all the major games have SLI profiles. And the vram it's not cause of the v-sync you can't get 160fps on Ultra no matter what :) well maybe with 3 titans black but doubtful, just the game is Vram hungry when on Ultra

    Fuck With The Best, Die Like The Rest!!!

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,493
    i'll keep an eye on this post as i will get a new video card soon too and it will probably be a either a 770 or 780




  • poefuepoefue Member Posts: 226
    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ is always a good place to start.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143


    Originally posted by skyline385

    Originally posted by mcrippins

    Originally posted by crashburn162 Forgot to say I suggest you get the 4gb ram version because if BF4 now on ultra takes 2.9gb video ram I guess next year or even witcher will take more.
    Wow that's crazy. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads up!
    He's running it without V-Sync at 160FPS that's why the huge VRAM. I run it at High on my GTX560 1GB card at 40-50FPS. I never run my games without V Sync ON as it not only consumes more power and heats up the card but also reduces the life of the GPU.

    You have a source for this? I've never heard of VSYNC being destructive, affecting power use adversely, or using additional VRAM. In fact, I've often heard the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143

    770 and 780 are same chip, 770 is just the salvage part with a few disabled cores. Good odds that you could boost a 770 and meet/exceed a stock 780 in terms of raw speed.

    780Ti is the same chip as Titan, it has a good bit more umph to it. I don't know that you could OC a plain 780 far enough to meet the stock 780Ti power.

    In terms of Bang for the Buck - you pay a premium for single-slot speed at the top end, and that price goes up very fast after about the $300 price point. The sweet spot is usually whatever cards are aimed at the $200-$300 (US) market, and usually there are good buys in the upper $100 (US) to lower $200 (US) segment as well, but that varies widely depending on where we are at with regard to a new generation of cards, how AMD/nVidia are positioning against each other, and whatever the Sale-of-the-Day happens to be.

    On a single monitor, I wouldn't recommend past a 770, and I don't recommend "future proofing" on the video card in any case. If you pay $600 today and that gets you 4 years of use, you could spend $300 today and then if you needed to upgrade to something better for $300 again in 2 years, and that second upgrade would get you more features, better power consumption, less noise, and similar levels of performance - and there's a good chance that 2 years would be more like 3 or 4 even with the lower performing card.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Originally posted by skyline385
    Originally posted by mcrippins
    Originally posted by crashburn162
    Forgot to say I suggest you get the 4gb ram version because if BF4 now on ultra takes 2.9gb video ram I guess next year or even witcher will take more.

    Wow that's crazy. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads up!

    He's running it without V-Sync at 160FPS that's why the huge VRAM. I run it at High on my GTX560 1GB card at 40-50FPS. I never run my games without V Sync ON as it not only consumes more power and heats up the card but also reduces the life of the GPU.

    Video memory usage is driven almost entirely by buffering textures.  If you've got at least 1 GB of video memory and a game wants more than you have, you can easily fix that by lowering the texture resolution.  That's really easy to code into a game engine (by mipmapping textures down one level to reduce the resolution), so it would be a pretty staggering case of incompetence if a game loads a bunch of high-resolution textures without any option to reduce the texture resolution.  I'd be somewhat surprised if any commercial game has ever made that mistake.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     


    Originally posted by skyline385

    Originally posted by mcrippins

    Originally posted by crashburn162 Forgot to say I suggest you get the 4gb ram version because if BF4 now on ultra takes 2.9gb video ram I guess next year or even witcher will take more.
    Wow that's crazy. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads up!
    He's running it without V-Sync at 160FPS that's why the huge VRAM. I run it at High on my GTX560 1GB card at 40-50FPS. I never run my games without V Sync ON as it not only consumes more power and heats up the card but also reduces the life of the GPU.

     

    You have a source for this? I've never heard of VSYNC being destructive, affecting power use adversely, or using additional VRAM. In fact, I've often heard the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

    I think he meant that vsync reduces power consumption; that's what he said, but it's hard to parse.

    As for video memory, vsync shouldn't meaningfully affect video memory capacity used.  The amount of memory used in drawing a frame and buffering various things does not depend on how often you draw a frame.

  • ReklawReklaw Member UncommonPosts: 6,495
    Originally posted by skyline385
    Originally posted by crashburn162
    Without any info on what resolution you are going to play, the best bang for the buck is the GTX 770 i have 2 of those by GIgabyte I overclocked them and I  get 160FPS constant on BF4 on high with x2 anti-alising. Tom's Hardware also agree that this is the best bang for the buck.

    2 X GTX770 will always be better than a solo GTX780 but many people hate the SLI complications which come up with new games. It also takes up more space in your cabinet, more heat, requires more cables and more power.

    I am just wondering isn't a Sli setup slightly overkill?

    Sure I understand if a players want multible monitors and acces to playing more games at a time.

    But overall what's the performance boost it gives. Do I really need 160FPS when I generaly get about 60 on max settings in most games?

    As for OP: Don't think you can go wrong with either.

Sign In or Register to comment.